|
The
Old Testament is replete with images of God as the Divine Warrior who
defends his people and destroys his enemies (e.g. Ps. 3, 7, 35,
68). In view of the fact that Christ
came as the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies (Mt. 5:17), it is perhaps curious that since the time of
the early church, there has been a committed pacifistic segment within
Christianity. Why has this occurred?
The Scriptures indicated that
Christ came to eradicate sin, and negate the effects of the curse. Since the wages of sin is death (Rom.
6:23), it stands to reason that this Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6) would
destroy death itself (Rev. 21:4), and the instruments that represent it, i.e. weaponry (Is. 9:5). Bound up with his advent is the hope that
people would “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruning hooks” (Mic. 4:3).
No Christian can gainsay this
much. It is clearly what the
Scriptures teach. But the question
must be asked whether these descriptions are properly to be identified
with, and effective at his advent (first coming) or his parousia (second coming).
Put another way, may the Christian ever
lawfully engage in combat of any kind, or does the Bible prescribe pacifism
for the followers of Christ? A plain
reading of the Scriptures indicates that the Bible does not support
pacifism. Of central importance to
this issue is Luke 22:35-38:
Then
Jesus asked [his disciples], “When I sent you without purse, bag or
sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they
answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and
also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy
one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the
transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.
Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The
disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That
is enough,” he replied. (NIV)
“If you don’t have a sword, sell your
cloak and buy one.” The words
are disturbing to many Christians. If Jesus is “The Prince of
Peace;” if it is because of him that nations would “beat their
swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks;” then
why would Jesus tell his disciples to obtain swords, even at the cost of
necessary clothing?
Many modern commentators maintain that Jesus was
speaking figuratively. This is a
legitimate thesis, but evidence for it is lacking. A thesis must be successfully argued; it
cannot simply be stated. The person claiming this as a figure of speech
must explain what figure is being used, and what the sword stands for.
It is very difficult in the context to maintain
that this is figurative, though. Walter Liefeld, who is against taking what
Jesus says at face value, struggles with this portion of Scripture: “This short passage is
difficult. It is common to solve the
difficulties by taking Jesus’ words as ironical, but if that were so,
[his later words] ‘that is enough’ would be hard to
understand. One would have expected
a correction of the disciples’ misunderstanding of it.”
Liefeld is right.
It was Jesus’ pattern to correct the misunderstanding of the
Twelve. We see an example of this in
Matthew 16:5-12, in which Jesus warns them to be on “guard against
the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” In response to this, the
disciples begin to discuss literal bread, to which Jesus replies “How
is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread?
But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and
Sadducees.” If Jesus was
speaking figuratively when he prescribed the sword, we would have expected
the same kind of correction.
Older commentators did not have so much
difficulty with the evident meaning of the text. Matthew Henry, whose commentary was first
published in 1706, states plainly, “The swords were to protect
themselves from assassins and robbers.”
Any plain reading of the text leads to this conclusion.
Jesus prescribed
the sword here because he was preparing his disciples for his departure.
During his earthly ministry, the disciples were protected by an
extraordinary providence. This,
however, was about to change.
In the
“High Priestly Prayer,” Jesus prayed, “While I was with them I protected
them and kept them safe by the Name you gave me” (John 17:12; italics added). There are numerous instances of
the protection of this extraordinary providence in the Gospels. In Luke 8:22-25, for example, we read the account of Jesus and his
disciples being in a boat when a squall came upon them. The text explicitly tells us, “they
were in great danger” (8:23). And yet, Jesus rebukes them for
exhibiting “little faith.”
The reason for
his rebuke is that Jesus was not going to die by drowning. Nor was he was going to die at the hands
of robbers. He was going to die on
the cross. And so, as long as he was
with them, no harm could possibly come to them. But now he was going away,
and with him the protection of an extraordinary providence. The disciples must now rely on the ordinary means of God’s
protection. And so he says,
“But now . . . if you don’t have a sword, sell
your cloak and buy one.”
What too many
Christians overlook in their consideration of this passage is the implicit
directive that Jesus here gives his disciples to love one another. Francis Schaeffer, the great
twentieth century Christian philosopher wrote,
“I am to love
my neighbor as myself, in the manner needed, in the midst of the fallen
world, at my particular point in history.
This is why I am not a pacifist.
Pacifism in this poor world in which we live – this lost world
– means that we desert the people who need our greatest help . . . I
come upon a big burly man beating a tiny tot to death . . . I plead with
him to stop. Suppose he
refuses? What does love mean
now? Love means that I stop him in
any way that I can, including hitting him.
To me, this is not only necessary for humanitarian reasons; it is
loyalty to Christ’s commands concerning Christian love in a fallen
world. What about the little
girl? If I desert her to the bully,
I have deserted the true meaning of Christian love – responsibility
to my neighbor.
Nor is
this perspective limited to Reformed Christianity. Norman Giesler, who does
not stand within the Reformed tradition, states, “Any man who refuses
to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them
morally.”
What is perhaps confusing to people is that
Jesus, having just prescribed the sword to his disciples, prohibits the use of that
sword in Luke 22:49-51. Why would Jesus, having
just told them to obtain swords, now forbid their use?
The vitally important point made here is that Christ’s
Kingdom is something that cannot be promulgated or enforced by the
sword. His Kingdom is not of this
world (Jn. 18:36).
The weapons used to advance his Kingdom must not be the weapons of
the world (2 Cor. 10:4-5). The Kingdom that Jesus was establishing would be
advanced through the weakness of the cross, not by the wielding of the
sword. Thus, the weapons of the
world must never be taken up by Christians to advance the cause of the
Christ. The sword must be used for defensive
purposes only. Jesus explicitly proscribed the sword as a way of advancing
his Kingdom.
The Kingdom that Jesus established will one day
dominate and do away with all others (Dan. 2:31-45, 1 Cor. 15:24-25).
Because the Prince of Peace has come, the day will eventually come when we
will beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. But
that day is not now. “Now,” the Master says,
“If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
GCH
|
